On May 6, 2026, following the establishment of the “Research Center for the Defense and Prevention of Business-Related Crimes” and the “Research Center for the Defense of Financial and Securities Crimes” at King&Capital Law Firm in Beijing, a symposium on hot topics in criminal defense was jointly held at the Beijing headquarters, focusing on current hotspots and challenges in criminal defense. Experts and scholars, including Professor Wang Xin from Peking University, Professor Wang Jianbo, Executive Director of the Research Center for Integrity and the Rule of Law at the Capital University of Economics and Business, and Associate Professor Liu Chuangao from the School of Law at the Capital University of Economics and Business, as well as center advisors and deputy directors, engaged in in-depth discussions on three themes: “Governance of Occupational Crimes in Private Enterprises under the New Judicial Interpretations,” “The Boundaries of Criminal Liability for Executives of Listed Companies under New Regulatory Requirements,” and “Controversies Regarding the Determination of Presumptive Insider Trading and Legislative Improvements.”
Topic 1:
Governance of Occupational Crimes in Private Enterprises under the New Judicial Interpretation
The “Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Embezzlement and Bribery” (hereinafter referred to as “Interpretation (II)”), jointly issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, will take effect on May 1, 2026. Among its provisions, the clause stipulating that the standards for conviction and sentencing of non-state-employed personnel for official duty crimes shall be based on those for public officials has drawn widespread attention from both academic and practical circles.
Moderator: Attorney Xu Ying
During the thematic seminar titled “Governance of Occupational Crimes in Private Enterprises Against the Background of the New Judicial Interpretation,” Professor Wang Jianbo from the Capital University of Economics and Business delivered the keynote speech. Senior Partners and Center Advisors at King&Capital Law Firm—Yang Zhaodong, Wang Jiuchuan, and Xiao Shuwei—along with Yan Huainan, Deputy Director of the Center for Research on Defense and Prevention of Corporate Crimes, and Attorney Zhang Xiaofeng, participated in the discussion. Xu Ying, Director of the King&Capital Law Firm Center for Research on Defense and Prevention of Corporate Crimes, served as the moderator for this session.
Professor Wang Jianbo of the Capital University of Economics and Business
Professor Wang Jianbo shared insights on the governance of occupational crimes in private enterprises against the backdrop of the issuance of the “Interpretation (II).” He explained that the introduction of this interpretation responds to anti-corruption practices and the need to protect the private economy; however, its provisions—such as the standardization of sentencing guidelines for occupational crimes between private and state-owned enterprises and the rules for the recovery of ill-gotten gains—have sparked controversy among both academia and legal practitioners. Drawing on over a year of empirical research, Professor Wang noted that while most private enterprise owners support criminalizing internal corruption, they remain cautious about reporting such cases. Their core concern is the recovery of ill-gotten gains and compensation for losses, and they express apprehension regarding excessive government intervention, particularly given the low caseload of relevant cases handled by public security, procuratorial, and judicial authorities. Finally, Professor Wang proposed governance strategies—including adopting a complaint-based prosecution model, strengthening victim participation, and optimizing the configuration of criminal law—to support the stable development of enterprises.
Attorney Yang Zhaodong
Attorney Yang Zhaodong, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Advisor to the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention as well as the King&Capital Research Center for Financial and Securities Criminal Defense, noted during the discussion session that he explicitly supports the industry’s enthusiastic response to the newly issued “Interpretation (II).” He addressed four major points of contention one by one: First, lowering the threshold for criminal liability does not exceed the authority of judicial interpretations, as the specific thresholds for criminal liability and sentencing have always been detailed and implemented through judicial interpretations; Second, the legal attributes of property interests—such as shareholding on behalf of others and expected returns—mean that incorporating them into criminal determinations does not exceed the scope of judicial interpretations and does not constitute an overreach in lawmaking; Third, while the minimum thresholds for criminal liability for occupational crimes in private and state-owned enterprises have been unified, differences remain in sentencing tiers and statutory maximum penalties. Furthermore, the retention of comprehensive discretionary space takes into account distinctions in legal interests and preserves room for defense by attorneys; Fourth, given the current high incidence of internal corruption in private enterprises, intensifying crackdowns is an inevitable necessity. Interpretation (II) does not violate the principle of restraint in criminal law, and the scope of its enforcement is reasonable. Attorney Yang emphasized that using the punishment of internal corruption in private enterprises as a means to protect the rights and interests of private enterprises not only meets the requirements of equal protection under the law but is also an important measure to implement policies aimed at optimizing the business environment.
Attorney Wang Jiuchuan
Attorney Wang Jiuchuan, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Advisor to the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention as well as the King&Capital Research Center for Financial and Securities Criminal Defense, shared his insights on the provisions regarding occupational crimes in private enterprises in the “Interpretation (II).” He pointed out that the new regulations represent the implementation of the central government’s private enterprise protection policies in the criminal justice sphere, embodying a dual orientation of equal protection and equal punishment. He noted that Article 8 of the new regulations unifies the standards for conviction and sentencing of duty-related crimes committed by non-public officials and public officials, while also establishing flexible provisions to allow for judicial discretion. However, in practice, there is a tendency to rely solely on the amount involved to determine guilt, which may lead to a significant increase in criminal cases involving private enterprises. Furthermore, excessive liability imposed on actual controllers involved in such cases could adversely affect business operations. Additionally, the application of the “piercing the corporate veil” asset recovery rule under Article 23 of the new regulations has become stricter, with instances already emerging where substantial assets are disposed of based solely on confessions, significantly increasing criminal risks for private enterprises. Attorney Wang believes that this judicial discretion presents a breakthrough for defense counsel; lawyers should adhere to evidentiary standards, conduct thorough case-by-case defenses, and simultaneously assist enterprises in analyzing the new regulations and mitigating compliance risks.
Attorney Xiao Shuwei
Attorney Xiao Shuwei, Party Committee Secretary, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm, and Advisor to the King&Capital Financial and Securities Criminal Defense Research Center, noted in his remarks that occupational crimes in private enterprises have gained renewed attention due to the “Interpretation (II).” The new regulations unify the standards for criminal liability and sentencing for occupational crimes committed by both public and non-public officials, significantly lowering the threshold for criminal liability for private enterprise employees, making the establishment of criminal compliance systems increasingly urgent. Attorney Xiao stated that while the new regulations send a signal of equal legal protection for enterprises of all ownership types, they also signify a significant rise in criminal risks and increased liability for private enterprises and their employees. He believes that private enterprises must strengthen internal control systems—including those for contracts, finance, bidding, and accounts receivable—improve mechanisms for separation of powers and checks and balances, plug management loopholes, and prevent risks such as embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. Only by thoroughly understanding the new regulations and strengthening governance at the source can enterprises achieve stable operations and ensure employees act in compliance, thereby contributing to high-quality economic development.
Attorney Yan Huainan
Attorney Yan Huainan, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Deputy Director of the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention, provided an in-depth interpretation of the “Interpretation (II)” based on his professional experience. He noted that the implementation of the new regulations reflects the anti-corruption resolve of supervisory authorities, focusing on new forms of hidden corruption, and detailing rules regarding the identification of bribery and anticipated gains, as well as the full-chain recovery of assets involved in cases. He noted that Article 8 of the new regulations aligns with the reform of the supervision system, highlighting differences in the scope of public officials and subjects of supervision, as well as overlapping jurisdictional authority where supervision takes precedence. He emphasized that while sentencing standards are unified, this does not mean a one-size-fits-all approach; there should be room for comprehensive discretion to strike a balance between equal protection and practical realities. At the same time, challenges remain in the application of the new regulations, such as inconsistencies in the “apply the older, more lenient provision” principle and the operational complexity of determining the recovery of illicit gains. He believes that the prevention and control of corporate-related crimes and anti-fraud efforts in private enterprises represent a promising new frontier in the industry, and he is committed to conducting research to support corporate development.
Attorney Zhang Xiaofeng
Attorney Zhang Xiaofeng, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Deputy Director of the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention, continued the discussion on the challenges of applying the “apply the older law with leniency” principle under the new regulations: For embezzlement by private enterprise employees and bribery by non-public entities, sentencing has shifted from two tiers to three. Given the inconsistencies between the old and new standards, official clarification of the application rules is urgently needed. In practice, there is a conflict between the principle of “no increase in sentence on appeal” and the principle of applying the older, more lenient law. He believes the principle of “no increase in sentence on appeal” should take precedence. Regarding the new regulations’ significant increase in the sentencing thresholds for case-involved amounts, he noted that this will drive a surge in demand for defense attorneys, leading to an increase in corporate criminal defense cases in the future. He explained that the new regulations have clearly intensified the punishment for internal corporate crimes in private enterprises, making it essential to proactively implement criminal risk prevention and control. This involves focusing on embezzlement, bribery by non-publicly owned entities, and business-related crimes, as well as improving corporate compliance governance to strengthen legal defenses for business operations.
Topic 2:
The Boundaries of Criminal Liability for Executives of Listed Companies Under New Regulatory Requirements
Since April, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has launched a special campaign on corporate governance for listed companies, explicitly focusing on enhancing the professional capabilities of board secretaries. It has formulated and issued the “Regulatory Rules for Board Secretaries of Listed Companies” to promote the formation of a new regulatory landscape at the regulatory and policy levels.
Moderator: Attorney Zhu Yalin
During the second session, a thematic discussion on “The Boundaries of Criminal Liability for Executives of Listed Companies Under New Regulatory Requirements,” Associate Professor Liu Chuangao from the Capital University of Economics and Business delivered the keynote speech. Senior Partners and Center Advisors Liu Jingxia, Zhang Libin, and Zang Desheng from King&Capital Law Firm, along with Deputy Director Liu Yang and Attorney Meng Fen, participated in the panel discussion. Zhu Yalin, Deputy Director of the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention and the King&Capital Research Center for Financial and Securities Crime Defense, served as the moderator for this session.
Associate Professor Liu Chuangao of the Capital University of Economics and Business
Associate Professor Liu Chuangao focused his presentation on the boundaries of criminal liability for executives of listed companies under the new regulatory landscape. He noted that regulatory policies for listed companies are currently being introduced at a rapid pace, with supervision shifting from post-incident enforcement to preemptive prevention. Consequently, the scope of responsibilities for corporate secretaries has significantly expanded, and their exposure to criminal risks has risen sharply. Regulatory and judicial practices are becoming increasingly stringent. Through legislation, amendments, and the issuance of judicial interpretations, the thresholds for criminal liability have been lowered and the scope of accountable parties expanded, resulting in a tighter integration between criminal and administrative enforcement and an intensified trend of transferring corporate violation cases to criminal prosecution. This phenomenon means that accountability for corporate executives may extend to actual controllers, shadow directors, and nominal executives. Regarding the issue of subjective fault, it can be legally presumed in practice; simply claiming lack of knowledge or merely going through the motions of performing duties will be insufficient to avoid liability. At the same time, Professor Liu also outlined high-frequency legal risks in corporate governance, including information disclosure, fraudulent issuance, breach of trust causing loss, embezzlement of corporate assets, and overseas listings. He emphasized that executives must strictly adhere to their duty of care and strengthen preemptive compliance and risk control procedures.
Attorney Liu Jingxia
During the panel discussion, Attorney Liu Jingxia, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Advisor to the King&Capital Financial Securities Criminal Defense Research Center, analyzed the boundaries of criminal liability for directors, supervisors, and senior executives of listed companies from a financial law perspective. She pointed out that these executives hold four distinct roles: fiduciary duty, information disclosure, corporate governance, and capital market stewardship. However, due to the blurred lines between compliance, administrative violations, and criminal offenses, they often find themselves straddling the line between criminal and non-criminal conduct without realizing it. At the same time, drawing on three major shifts in the current regulatory landscape and potential high-incidence criminal charges, Attorney Liu recommended that executives adopt a proactive compliance mindset, maintain a complete audit trail throughout their duties, strictly adhere to decision-making procedures, and respond prudently to regulatory inspections to fortify their defenses against criminal risks.
Attorney Zhang Libin
Attorney Zhang Libin, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Advisor to the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention, drew on perspectives regarding cross-border compliance and international business operations. By citing classic U.S. case law and comparing the development of compliance practices in China and abroad, he emphasized that listed companies must transition from formal compliance to substantive compliance, improve internal control and independent audit mechanisms, and clarify the boundaries of conflicts of interest involving intermediaries. At the same time, he reminded Chinese enterprises expanding overseas to strictly adhere to local legal boundaries and expressed his hope to collaborate with King&Capital Law Firm to support enterprises in building cross-border compliance frameworks.
Attorney Zang Desheng
Attorney Zang Desheng, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Advisor to the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention as well as the King&Capital Research Center for Financial and Securities Criminal Defense, noted that the defense of criminal cases involving senior executives of listed companies currently faces three major challenges: the “piercing of the corporate veil” in liability determination, the presumption of subjective fault, and the normalization of the interface between administrative and criminal proceedings, all of which have increased the difficulty of defense. At the same time, he proposed four key defense strategies: clarifying the liable party, refuting subjective fault, defining the boundaries of conduct, and severing the causal link. Regarding corporate risk prevention and control, he emphasized the need to establish a comprehensive defense approach—building a strong defense line through pre-incident compliance, intervening during incidents to secure evidence, and conducting meticulous post-incident defense—to comprehensively address criminal risks.
Attorney Liu Yang
Attorney Liu Yang, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Deputy Director of the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention as well as the King&Capital Research Center for Financial and Securities Criminal Defense, analyzed the trend toward stricter regulation following the implementation of the new regulations from the perspectives of corporate governance and the integration of criminal and administrative proceedings. She pointed out that the two statutory duties of loyalty and diligence form the foundation of responsibility for directors, supervisors, and senior executives; violating these obligations will trigger threefold liability: civil compensation, administrative sanctions, and criminal prosecution. which will have far-reaching implications for both individual executives and the enterprises they serve. She recommended that enterprises improve their compliance systems, maintain records of their duties, and strengthen legal awareness to proactively mitigate criminal risks associated with their responsibilities.
Attorney Meng Fen
Attorney Meng Fen, Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Deputy Director of the King&Capital Research Center for Financial and Securities Criminal Defense, noted during the discussion that the Company Law, the Twelfth Amendment to the Criminal Law, and the Second Judicial Interpretation on Bribery and Corruption are consistent in their aim to ensure equal protection for private enterprises and simultaneously lower the threshold for criminal liability for directors, supervisors, and senior executives of listed companies. She emphasized that current regulatory oversight has shifted from formal compliance to substantive, penetrative supervision, shadow directors and related-party transactions may all be subject to in-depth tracing and accountability. A single violation by a listed company can trigger civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities, potentially involving multiple criminal charges. In light of this trend, Attorney Meng proposed that directors, supervisors, and senior management must strictly adhere to regulations in performing their duties, maintain a complete audit trail to prove their innocence, and clearly define the boundaries of responsibility and risk. Only through compliant operations can they ensure steady and sustainable development.
Topic 3:
Controversies Regarding the Determination of Presumptive Insider Trading and Legislative Improvements
Presumptive insider trading has always been a core point of contention in the field of securities crimes. The current “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Insider Trading and Disclosure of Inside Information” issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate was implemented in 2012, over 14 years ago. Both the academic and legal communities anticipate the formulation and implementation of a new judicial interpretation to address pain points in case handling and respond to key concerns in practice.
Moderator: Attorney Zhang Qiming
During the third session, a thematic discussion on “Controversies Regarding the Determination of Presumptive Insider Trading and Legislative Improvements,” Professor Wang Xin of Peking University delivered the keynote speech. Men Jinling, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Advisor to the Center; Nie Sufang, Wang Xintong, and Sun Guangzhi, Senior Partners and Deputy Directors of the Center; as well as Partners Xu Ming and Wang Jiaming participated in the panel discussion. Zhang Qiming, Director of the King&Capital Law Firm's Financial and Securities Criminal Defense Research Center, served as the moderator for this session.
Professor Wang Xin of Peking University
Professor Wang Xin shared insights on the key points of contention regarding the judicial determination of insider trading. He noted that insider trading offenses account for the largest proportion of securities crime cases, and the issue of presumption in their determination is the core point of contention. He emphasized that presumption itself has inherent value, but the key lies in how to regulate its expansive application. He stated that the presumption in insider trading cases is a rebuttable factual presumption. The prosecution bears the burden of proof for the two statutory conditions—obviously abnormal trading and the absence of a legitimate reason—and must establish a chain of evidence for these foundational facts to reach a conclusive determination. At the same time, he emphasized that the interface between criminal and administrative proceedings, the determination of the “sensitive period,” and the role and status of administrative determination letters are also issues worthy of attention in insider trading cases. Furthermore, while interpreting the focal points of the controversy, Professor Wang Xin pointed out that the scope of the controversy is also where the space for defense counsel lies.
Attorney Men Jinling
During the discussion session, Attorney Men Jinling, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm, former Associate Professor at the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Advisor to the King&Capital Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention, and Advisor to the King&Capital Law Firm Research Center for Criminal Defense in Financial and Securities Cases, interpreted presumption from the perspective of evidence law as a litigation technique that reduces the burden of proof. She explained that presumption refers to a foundational fact—not an essential element—that is explicitly stipulated by legal norms, serving as a substitute for the essential element in the subject matter of proof. Once the foundational fact is proven, it can give rise to the legal effect of establishing the essential element. When applying the technique of presumption, one must distinguish between indirect proof and presumption. In cases where no explicit legal provision permits the substitution of essential facts with underlying facts, and where indirect evidence is used for proof, it remains necessary to adhere to the statutory standard of proof for the essential facts.
Attorney Nie Sufang
Attorney Nie Sufang, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm and Deputy Director of the King&Capital Law Firm Research Center for Corporate Crime Defense and Prevention as well as the King&Capital Law Firm Research Center for Financial and Securities Criminal Defense, raised two issues and offered two recommendations based on judicial practice: First, the issue of the expanded application of presumption rules in insider trading cases; second, the overly narrow scope of application of insider trading exemption clauses in practice. In response to these issues, Attorney Nie proposed narrowing the scope of presumption, explicitly prohibiting secondary presumption, reasonably defining the scope of “close associates,” and clarifying the definition of “close
